Criminal Court Haters, Take Note: What the #believethevictims Movement Fails to Recognize.

• Author: Izadi, Melody
• Position: CRIMINAL LAW

No one condones sexual violence, harassment, assault or anything of that nature against women, or anyone else. Not the Judges, Courts, or Defence Lawyers. However, the sharp and profound movement that villainizes any participant of the criminal justice system that is involved in the acquittal of an accused who is alleged to have sexually assaulted one or more women was ignited after Marie Heinen's admirable defence of Jian Ghomeshi. Since then, the internet has been full of ignorant representations of the justice system, and positions that deny the presumption of innocence to anyone charged with a sexual assault. Editorials, reports, blogs and articles drone on and on about the despicable justice system participants that are allegedly complicit in condoning sexual violence.

But is that really the case? Are judges and lawyers really sitting around and inventing ways to prevent justice from occurring and allowing sexual assault to be excused? Perhaps the reality is that each case is heard on its merits. And perhaps some complainants who come forward are more than just inconsistent in small portions of their innocence--they are proven to be flat out lying.

Amongst all the noise and chaos that surrounds this movement, there seems to be an unfortunate lack of recognition of cases like the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision is R. v. McKenzie 2017 ONCA 128--a decision from a Court that is higher than the Court that heard the case of Jian Ghomeshi.

Mr. McKenzie was convicted of sexually assaulting a 19-year-old colleague at a workplace Christmas party. He pulled her into a washroom, groped her, and partially penetrated her anus with his penis. He stopped the assault because someone knocked on the door. Mr. McKenzie was found guilty.

The victim was believed in this case.

Mr. McKenzie then appealed his sentence. He was not a citizen of Canada, but a permanent resident. His immigration status could be affected by any criminal convictions. Mr. McKenzie was sentenced to 9 months in prison for his crime, in accordance with the status-quo sentence that the Court of Appeal had previously ruled on. He appealed his sentence on the basis that if he received a sentence of 6 months imprisonment or more, he would lose his right to appeal any removal order, a.k.a. deportation, made by the Canadian government.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. McKenzie's appeal, meaning his 9...